UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 02-1108
W I L L I AM E. F RASU RE , J R ., A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. ANTHONY J. P RI NCI PI , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
.

On Ap pe a l f ro m th e B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls
(Argued F ebrua

ry 19, 2004 Dec ided September 14, 2004 )

Sa nd ra E. Bo oth , o f C olumbu s, Oh io, fo r t he a pp e lla nt.
Tim S. Mc Cla in , G e ne ra l Co un se l; R. Ra nd all Cam pb e ll , A ssi sta

nt G e ne ra l Co un se l; Joan E. Mo ria rty , D eputy

Assistant Gener al Counsel; and Richard A. Cohn , all of Washington, D.C., we re on the brief

, and Debra L. Bernal , of Washington, D.C., a rg ued, for the appe llee.
Be fore KRAMER, Chief Judge , and I VERS and STEI NB ERG, Judges

. STEI NB ERG, Judge : The appe ll ant, throug h counsel, see ks review of a Ma rch 25, 2002, Boa rd of Ve tera

ns' Appea ls (Boa

rd or B VA) de cision t h at d enied ba sic elig ibilit y for a n awa rd of Depa rtment of Ve tera

ns Affa irs (VA) disability compe n sation benef

its under 38 U.S.C. § 1110. Record ( R.) at 1-6. The appellant and the Secre tary of Veterans Affa irs (Secr etar y ) ea ch filed a

brief,

and the a pp e lla nt f ile d a re ply br ie f. Th e Cou

rt he ard or a l argume nt o n F e br

ua ry 19 , 2 00 4. Th is appea l is ti mely , and the Court has jurisdiction pursua nt to 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a) a nd 7266(a) . For the re asons set for

th below, the C o u rt wi l l v ac ate the B oard de cision and re mand the matter for further development a

nd rea djudication.2 I. Re le va nt Bac kgr ound I n J uly 19 9 9 , t he appe llant filed with a VA r eg ional office (RO) a n application for

VA dis a bil ity c omp e ns a tio n b a se d o n a sse rt e d V A s e rv ic e c on ne c tio n for he ari ng los s in c on ne c tio n w ith

a c tiv e -d uty se rv ic e in t

he U .S

. Co ast Gua

rd Me rc ha nt M ari ne (M e rc ha

nt M ari ne ) d

ur ingWor ld War I I(WW I I ), as pa

rt of the c rewof the Lak e Charles Vi c tor

ytr oo p s hip . R. a t 17 -2 4; see 38 C.F.R. § 4.87 (1998). A c opy of his DD Form 214 ref

lects his active- duty

service in the Merc hant Marine from Aug ust 28, 1945, to D ece mber 31, 1946. R. at 9-10. I n an August 1999 decision, the VARO conc luded that it did not have jurisdiction over the appellant' s claim because his DD Form 214 indicated that his service had occurre d during the per iod from Aug ust 28, 1945, to Dece mber 31, 1946, wher eas in orde r to qualify g ener ally for vetera n status he had to show that he had pa rticipated in active- duty

service betwee n Dec ember 7, 1941, and August 15, 1945. R. at 33. I n J uly 2000, the R O i ssued a Statement of t he Case ( SOC) concluding that the appe llant was

no t re c og n i z e d

u n d e r t h e G

. I

. B i l l I mp r o v e m e n tA c to f 1 9 7 7 , P u b

. L

. N o
. 9 5

- 2 0 2 , § 4 0 1 , 9 1 S t a t. 1 4 3 3 , 1 4 4 9

- 5 0 ( f

o u n d a t 3 8 U

. S. C. § 1 0 6 ( n o te ) ) [h e r e in a f te r Pu b li c L aw 9 5

- 2 0 2 § 4 0 1 o r § 4 0 1 ], as a " veter an" who was e ligible f or VA compensation be nefits beca use the period of his ocea

ng oing service did not occur be tween D ece mber 7, 194 1 , an d Au gu s t 1 5, 1945. R. at 46. I n September 2000, the appe llant submit ted a VAFor m 9 (Substantive Appea l to the BVA) and reque sted a B VA he ari ng ; he state d th a t hi s se rv ic e in t he Me rchant Mar ine be g an o n July 3, 19 45 , a

nd that he fi rs t

serve d on an oce ang oing ve ssel on September 22, 1945. R. at 49. At a May 20 01 RO he ari ng , th e a

pp e lla nt t e sti fi e d, un de r o a th ( 1) that he wa s sw orn i nto

se rv ic e wi th t

he Me rc ha

nt M ari ne on July 5, 19 45 (R . at 5 5) ; ( 2) that he the re a ft e r b e g an tr a ini ngin Sheepshea d Ba

y , New Y ork, including three wee ks of training"some time during J uly " 1945 a board a ship (an " Americ an Navig ator training ship"), which ship w ent up and down the c oast of the United States i n fo re i gn water s in which there wer e Ge rman submar ines (R. at 55-56, 58) ; (3) that he returne d to Sheepshea d Ba y training fac ility for a few day s (R. at 56); (4) that he was swor n into the U.S. Coast Guard on August 14, 1945; and (5) tha t h e wa s there afte r sent to Virg inia for more training (R. at 56). At t h e hearing , the appe llant was re prese nted by counsel (dif

fer ent from the c ounsel now repr esenting him) who argued that the a ppellant is elig ible for VA benef its because he had se rvice3

betwee n Dec ember

7, 1941, and August 15, 1945. R. at 54. He also ar g ued that as of Marc h 17, 2000, the law ha d chang ed to include the period from Dec ember 7, 1941, to Dece mber 31, 1946, for deter mining whe ther a

claimant' s active- duty

service established vete ran status. R

. at 53-54. He

argue d th a t th e a

pp e ll ant ha d " c on tin

uo us se rv ic e " in t

he Me rc ha

nt M ari ne fr om Jul y

3, 19 45 , to J uly 3, 1947, including ( 1) ser vice a s a mem b er o f a cr ew on a public vessel in fore ign w ater s for approximately

three we ek s beg inning on July 22, 1945, and (2) service aboar d an oce ang oing

merc hant vessel from Aug ust 28, 1945, to August 12, 1947. R. at 54. At the he aring , the appe llant provided, inter a lia, copies of the following documents: (1) A n October 1998 press re lease from the office of U. S

. S en at or Tre nt L ott describing the Vete rans Prog rams Enha nceme nt Act of 1998 (VPEA), Pub. L . No. 105-368, § 402(a) , 112 Stat. 3315, 3336-37, i ncluding the sec tion providing for " rec og nition and burial bene fits" for members of the Merc hant Marine who, inter alia, ha d serve d be tw e e n A ugus t 16 , 1 94 5, and De c e mbe r 3 1, 19 46 (R . at 62 ; see V PE A § 4 0 2 ) ; (2) a c opy of 38 U.S.C. § 106 and statutory notes, including Public L aw 95 -2 0 2 § 4 01 (R. at 63, 64); (3) three

cer tificates of

discharg e fr om the U.S

. Coast Guar d indicating , respe ctively , shipment dates for the appellant of

Aug ust 28, 1945, September 22, 1945, and November 12, 1945, and discharg e dates of September 21, 1945, O ctober 14, 1945, and Mar ch 6 , 1946 (R. at 65-67); ( 4) a U .S. Coast Guard "Me rcha nt Seaman' s Certificate of I dentification" (the C o u rt notes that the copy in the rec ord on appea l (ROA) is ba

rely leg ible) (R. at 70); ( 5) a " Record of Service " r efle cting , inter alia, that the appellant e nrolled on Jul y 3, 1945, repor

ted to training on J uly 5 , 1 9 45, transfe rre d to the "A m[ eric an] Navig ator" for thre e we eks on Jul y 22, 1945, and re ported to training on Aug ust 21, 19 45 (R . at 71 ); (6 ) a

U. S. Co a st G ua

rd " Ce rt if ic a te of Se rv ic e " (t

he Court no te s tha t th is cop y

is bare ly leg ible) (R. at 72); (7) a "Ce rtificate of Gra duation" from the U.S. Mar itime Service Tr aining S t a t i o nd a t e d

A u g u s t2 8 , 1 9 4 5 ( R

. a t 7 3 ) ; ( 8 ) a U

. S

. M ar i t i m e S e r v i c e " R e l e a s e f

r o m A c t i v e D u t y" form that notes that the appellant had enrolled on J uly 3, 1945, and had " been r elea sed fr om active duty " on Aug ust 28, 1945, and " place d in a n inactive status in the United States Mar itime Service" (R. at 74); and ( 9) a "Ce rtificate of Substantially Continuous S ervic e" in the U.S. Mercha nt Marine that ref lects that the appellant "ha [d] completed a per iod of substantially continuous service in the United States Merc hant Marine . . . commenc[ing ] on J uly 3, 1945[,] and ter

minat[ ing] on J uly

3, 19 47 " (R . at 75 ). He a lso pr ov ide d a t the he ari ng a do c ume nt that he ha d p re pa re d s umm ari zinghis4

service, i n cluding training at the Mar itime Training School in Sheepshead B ay , New Y ork, Ne w York, be g inning on July

5, 1945; ocea

ng oing tr aining from Jul y 25, 1945, to Aug ust 2, 1945; deck training beg inning on Aug ust 2, 1945; be ing sw orn into the Coast Guard on Aug ust 14, 1945; one

wee k at the Virg inia Maritime Discha rg e Station beg inning on August 21, 1945; and his having joined the cr ew of

the Lak e Cha rle s V ic tor ytroop ship on Aug ust 28, 1945. R. at 68. I n a Jul y 2001 Supplemental SOC (SS OC), the RO found that the appellant " cannot be

rec og nized a s a veter an in c onnection with a claim for VA compensation." R. at 82. The RO stated that the VPEA had not amended the de fi nition of "a ctive duty " a s rec og nized in § 401. R . at 83; Public L aw 95- 202 § 401

. The RO found that, although the appellant " obviously did enlist in t he Me rc ha nt M ari ne be fo re [Au g us t 15 , 1 94 5]" , h is t ra ini nge xten de d f

ro m hi s d a te of

e nli stm e nt u

nti l Aug ust 28, 1945, and, thus, h e d i d n ot serve on a ctive-duty service on the hig h seas be tween Dec ember

7, 1941, and A u gu st 15, 1945, and had not established ve tera n status. R. at 82-83. I n th e Marc h 2 00 2 B VAde c isi on he re on a pp e a l, t he B oa rd de nie d to th e a

pp e lla nt b a sic elig ibilit y for VAbenef

its. R. at 1-6. The B oard note d that the appellant's VA For m 9 and his DD Fo rm 2 1 4 re fl ec t ed t h at h e ha d s er v ed i n t h e Me rc h an t M ar i n e fr o m Au gu s t 2 8 , 1 9 4 5 , t h ro u gh Dec ember

31, 1946, but stated that under 38 C

. F. R

. § 3.7(x)(14) and ( 15) (2001) , only "[U.S.] M e r c h an t S e a m e n w h o s e r v e d o n b l o c k a d e s h i p s i n s u p p o rt o f O p e r a t i o nM u l b e r r y d u r i n g [ W W II] and Amer ican Me rcha

nt Marines in

O cea ng oing Ser

vice dur ing the period of a rmed c onflict betwe en Dec ember

7, 1941, and August 15, 1945, are c onsidered to have had active service." R. at 3-4. The B oa rd c on c lud e d th a t th e a

pp e lla nt' s se rv ic e be tw e e n Augus t 28, 194 5, and De c e mbe r 3 1, 19 46 , d id not establish active- duty

service for status as a

"ve tera n". R. at 4 (quoting 38 U .S.C. § 101(2)). The B oard discusse d the May 2001 RO hear ing a

nd noted t hat t he arg ument prese nted there by the appe llant's r epre sentative re g ardin g rec ent leg islation ex panding the elig ibilit y period for acti v e - d u ty s e r v ic e a p p e ar e d to r e f

e r to 4 6 U

. S. C. § § 1 1 2 0 1 an d 1 1 2 0 2 ( p r o v id in g e li g ibilit y for veter ans' burial and c emeter y benef its). Ibid. (re fer

ring mistakenly

to titl e 38 ins tead of

title 46). T h e B o ar d

ac kn o wl ed gedt h at t h e ap p el l an th ads u b m i t t e d ad d i t i o n al d o cu m en t s at t h at h ea ri n g; howeve r, (1) as to the appellant's contention that he had serve d in the U.S. Coast Guard for one day

on Aug ust 14, 1945, the Boa rd reje cted that contention on the g round th at t h e s u b mitted ide nti fi c a tio n d oc ume nt f a ile d to " e sta

bli shor su g g e st" that he ha d ser ve d on th a t da

y and (2 ) a s to5

the appe llant's c ontention that he h ad oceang oing se rvice for thre e we eks in J uly 1945, the B oard rej ec t ed t hat contention on the g round that " there is no certific ate of discharg e docume nting suc h service , and it appea

rs that during the time period in question [he] was underg oing training ." R. at 5. The Boa

rd deter mined that "the larg est obstacle c onfronting the appe llant" wa s that his DD For m 21 4 r e fl e c te d s e rv ic e date s f ro m A ugus t 28 , 1 94 5, to De c e mbe r 31 , 19 46 , be c a us e un de r 3 8 C. F .R. § 3 .1 4( d) (2 00 1) " de te rm inatio ns by the se rv ic e de pa

rtme nt as to t

he ve te ra n' s h on or a ble se rv ic e wi ll be binding on VA." R. at 5.

II. Contentions on Appeal I n his init ial brief, the appellant c ontends that the Mar ch 2002 B VA dec ision should be

reve rsed a s clea

rly err oneous bec ause the Boa rd re lied on 38 C.F.R. § 3.7(x)(15), which should be invalidated to the extent that it (1) limit s pote n t i al t i t l e-38-benef its eligibility

for se rvice in the Merc hant Marine to those w h o s er ved fr om Dece mber 7, 1941, throug h Aug ust 15, 1945; (2)

c o n t r a d i c t s § 4 0 1 , w h i c h " a u t h o ri z e [ s ] t h e S e c r e t ar

y o f D e f e n s e t o d e t e r

m i n e [ o n l y ] w h e t h e r

[ W W II] service of the Mer chant Ma rine, a s a g roup, wa s entitled to be consider ed as active military service "

and no t to e sta

bli shthe date s o f s uc h s e rv ic e wi th in th e ov eral l pe ri od of wa r; and (3 ) c on tr a dic ts 38 U.S.C. § 101(8), which define s WW I I as the period from Dec ember 7, 1941, to Dece mber 31, 1946. Br ief (B r.) at 5-15, 17-18. The a ppellant ar g ues that once the Secr etar y of De fense deter

mines that, as applicable here , a WW I I g roup meets the criter ia for a ctive-duty service cer

tification, he ha s no further

authority to restrict the e ligibility period for ac t i v e- duty

service to be less than that contained in se ction 101(8)' s definition of WW I I , particula rly when the intent of

Congr ess was clea rly set forth in Public L aw 9 5 -2 0 2 , § 401, which, the Sec reta ry points out, specifies that

rec og nized gr oups "' shall be consider ed ac tive duty for the purpose of all laws admini stered' " by VA. B r. a t 11 -1 4 ( e mph a sis in B ri e f) ; se e als o Reply Br . at 6-9. He also asser

ts that the Boa

rd conc eded that he had a ctive-duty

service prior to Dec ember 31, 1946, and, ther efo re , h e s h o uld be g rante d "ve tera n" status and his claim for a hear ing- lo s s d isability

should be rema

nded to the RO for development a

nd adjudication in the first instance . Br . at 18. I n the alter

native, if the Court de termines that § 3.7(x )(15) is valid, the appellant a rg ues that the Marc h 2002 BV A decision should be vacated and the matter rema nded becaus e t h e B o ard (1) mi s c o n s tr

u e d § 3

. 1 4 ( d ) , w h ic h d o e s n o t a p p ly to th e is s u e w h e th e r

h e h a s e s ta

b li s h e d v e tera n6

status; (2) fa iled to consider his s er v ice be tween July 3, 1945, when he enlisted in the Merc hant Marine, a nd Aug ust 15, 1945; ( 3) failed to de termine whe ther his DD F orm 214 ac curately ref lected his service dates; and ( 4) fa iled to addre ss whether h i s J u ly 1945 service may

be construe d as "a ctive[ -]duty

service " f

or establishing veter an status. B r. at 6, 15-16, 18; Appe llant's Aug ust 17, 2003, Errata at 1. The S ecr etar

y argues i n his brief that the Court should af firm the Mar ch 2002 B VA dec ision b ec au s e ( 1 ) t h e D ep ar t m en to f D ef en s e ( Do D) "co n cl u s i v el y fo u n d " t h at t h e p er i o d

o f t h e ap p el l an t 's active- duty

service in the Merc hant Marine was not within the elig ibilit y period defined by the DoD and by VA in § 3

. 7 (x )( 1 5 ) an d (2) § 3.7( x )(15) is valid. Br. at 2, 7. The Secr etar y notes that the Do D i nf or me d th e a

pp e lla nt t hat it re c og nize d h is a c tiv e -d

uty se rv ice fro m A ugus t 28 , 1 94 5, to Dec ember 31, 1946, only as t o elig ibilit y for burial and interment be nefits under 46 U.S.C. §§ 11201 and 11203, and the Secre tary argues t hat t he appellant is not eligible for benef its under Public L aw 95-202 § 401. B r. at 7-8. H e conte nds (1) that the evidenc e reflec ts that Aug ust 28, 1945, was the date that the a

ppellant ende d his Maritime Servi ce t ra i n i n g and bec ame a seama n on the Lake Cha rle s V ic tor yand (2) that the DoD r ecog nizes only active- duty

serv ice f or the a ppellant from Aug ust 28, 1945, to Dece mber 31, 1946, as i s consistent with a J anuar y 1982 DoD re g ulation stating that trainee s in the "Ma

ritime Service" should not rece ive ac tive-dut y re co g nition. Br. at 7- 8, 14 (c iti ng47 F e d. Re g . 6 ,9 16 , 6 ,9 16 (F e b. 17 , 1 98 2) (d e te rm ini ng , in te r a lia , th a t ser vice in U .S. Maritime Service TrainingOrg anization could "not be c onsidered a ctive military service ") ). The Sec reta

ry asser ts that, although the appellant s u b mi tt e d a d d it io n a l d o c u

me nts , " n o f

u r ther VA inquiry

is warr anted he re be cause the D D[ For m 214] is and should be dispositive as to [ the a] p p el l an t 's d at es o f s er v i ce
. " Br

. at 8 -1 0 (c i t i n g Schumac her v. Aldridge , 6 65 F . Su pp . 4 1 ( D. D. C. 1987), and Fo ge l v . D e

p't o f D e f. , 169 F. Supp. 2d 140 (E.D. N. Y. 2 0 0 1 ), a ff 'd , 36 Fe d.Appx. 473 (2d C ir. 2002), and reque sting that the C ourt take judicial notice of the se dec isions). He re jects what he cha rac terizes as an " assumption" by the appe llant that § 3.7(x )(15) authorizes benef its only for WW I Ise rv ic e a c tiv it ies and ar g ue s ( 1) that Co ng re ss d id n ot i nte nd Pub lic L aw 9 5- 20 2 § 40 1 to limit b en efits to WW I Iparticipa nts and (2) that § 401 applies to ' "similarly situated' g roups irrespe ctive of t h e per iod of ' combat' in which they serve d." B r. at 11-14. H e fur ther a sserts that there is "no a

rticulable c onflict betwe en" § 3.7(x)(15) and se ction 101(8) beca use the DoD has the

a uth or ity to d e sig nate g ro up s f

or a c tiv e -d ut y - s e r v i c e r e c og nit ion , in c lud ingthe a uth or ity to d e sig nate7

subg roups, and VApromulg ated § 3.7(x)(15) to a dopt the DoD' s rec og nition of a "disc rete Merc hant Mari ne rs su

bg ro up " tha

t se rv e d be tw e e n De c e mbe r 7, 194 1, and Au g us t 15, 194 5. B r. a t 12; Pu bli c L aw 95- 202 § 401. I n his reply

brief, the appellant argues that the Secre tary has mischara cter ized his arg ument

re g ard ingthe va lid ity

of § 3. 7( x)( 15 ) and that the a pp e lla nt is n ot a sse rt ingthat § 4 01 is l imi te d to WW I Icivilians wh o m ay be re cog nized as having serve d on "a ctive duty "; r ather , the appe llant

c on te nd s th a t th e Se c re tary may no t li mit the po te ntial eli gibility

pe ri od fo r WW I Ia c tiv e -d

uty service to be less than that define d in section 101(8). Reply Br . at 2-5; Public L aw 95- 202 § 401. He f urther c ontends (1) that § 3.14(d) does n o t “r eq uire that VAacc ept [his DD Form 214] as conclusively

establishing the date of commence ment o f service " a nd notes that offic ial documentation fr om the War Shipping Administration and the Merc hant Marine demonstrates that he joined the M er chant Marine on Jul y 3, 1945, and wa s sworn in two day s later a nd (2) that the Boa rd er red by not consideringofficia l documents ref lecting those dates. Reply Br . at 9-12; R. at 74 -7 5. Th e a

pp e lla nt a lso ma int a ins that Fogel , su pra , as cited by the S ecr etar y in his brief, is not bin din g a uth or ity fo r thi s Cour

t bec a us e " its [pur

po rt e d] ho ldi ngis d ic t[um ]" and that, i n a ny e ve nt, the fa cts make Fogel

distinguishable be cause there , unlike the fa cts in the instant case , the plaintiff be lon g e d to the Mari tim e Se rv ic e Tr a ini ngOr g a nizatio n, a

su bg ro up of the Me rc ha

nt M ari ne . Re ply Br . at 12-14.

III . A nal ys is A. P re liminar y Ma tte rs As an initial matter , the appe llant has clar ified in his reply brief, a nd throug h counsel at oral arg ument, h is p o s it io nr e g a r d in g th e a

p p li c a b il it y o f Pu b li c L aw 9 5

- 2 0 2 § 4 0 1 to g r o u p s w ho participated in WW I I as well as i n other periods of conflict; the C ourt ag ree s with both parties that

no thi ngin § 40 1 indi c a te s tha t its app lic a tio n is limite d o nly to g ro up s th a t qu a lif

y fo r a c tiv e -d

uty

se rv ic e duri ngWW I I

. Re pl y B r. a t 2- 5; S e c re tary ' s B r. a t 11 -1 3; P ub lic L aw 9 5- 20 2 § 40 1; see Chevron, U.S.A ., Inc. v . Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. , 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984) (holding that revie wing court " must give e ffe ct to the unambiguously expressed intent of Cong ress" wher e Con g re ss h a s b y

statut e dir e c tly

a dd re sse d is su e ); Le e (

Ra y mo nd ) v . W est , 13 Vet.App. 388, 394 (2 00 0) (c iti ngc a se law fo r pr inc ipl e tha t pl a in m e anin g of

statut e c on tr ols un le ss i t c on tr a dic ts8

draf ters' clea rly expressed intent). The Court also notes that the Secr etar y cites two ca ses, Fogel

and Schumac her , both su

pra , as examples of cour ts' de termining"w hether

[t he] DoD p ro p erly

denied milit ary rec og nition to s ever al Merc hant Marine sub groups ac tive during [W W I I ]" and urg es the Court to take jud ic ia l no tic e of the se c a se s. B r. a t 9- 10

. Th e Se c re tary c on c e de s that the B oa rd did not cite to either c ase, but a rg ues t hat "any err or resulting from the om ission is harmless be cause [t he a]ppellant' s dates of D o D- re co gn ized service c onfirm that he is not and c annot be e ligible f or the benef it he seeks a s a matter of

law." Br . at 10. Although the Court may

take judicial notice o f fac ts not in di spute, see Sm ith ( Brady) v. Derwinski , 1 Vet.App. 235, 238 ( 1991), and the exis tence of the Schumac her and Fogel

c a se s is a fac t of which the Court can take notice, Schumac her , su pra , was de cided by

the U.S. District Court for the District of C olumbia, and Fo ge l, s up ra , was decide d by the U.S. D istrict Court for the Easter n Di str ic t of New Yor k and th e U. S. Co ur t of Ap pe a ls f

or the Se c on d Ci rc uit , a

nd the law o f t

ho se jurisdictions is not binding on this Court. See Bethea v . Derwinski , 2 Vet.App. 252, 254 ( 1992) (noting that decisions of the U .S. Court of Appeals for the Fe dera l Circ uit a re binding on this Court). I n addition, the Court ag ree s with the appellant t h at t he languag e in Fogel to which the Secr etar

y po i n t s is clear ly

dictum beca

use the c ourt there held that the suit was bar red by a statute of limit ations. Fogel , 169 F. Supp. 2d at 149-50. The court in Schumac her , su pra , did addre ss in part g ra nti nga c tiv e -d

uty -s e rv ic e status to m e mbe rs of the Me rc ha

nt M ari ne wh o h a d p art ic ipate d in mil ita ry inv a sio ns duri ngWW I I ; ho we ve r, the a pp e lla nt h e re is no t a sse rt ingpa rt ic ipatio n in milit ary invasions. As to the court' s discussion in Schumac her of ac tive-duty -status elig ibilit y for

me mbe rs of

the Me rc ha

nt M ari ne se rv ing" in o c e ang oi ng servi c e fr om D e c e mbe r 7 , 1 94 1, to Dec ember

31, 1946", a lthough the c ourt held that the Sec reta ry ' s denial of the a

ppl i cation by

me mbe rs of

the Me rc ha

nt Mari ne wa s inva lid be c a us e it re lie d on "u

ns ta te d an d va g ue c ri te ri a " , it also deter mined that it could not de cide, ba sed on the ROA, whe ther " denial of that application either in wh ole or in pa

rt wo uld ne c e ssa

ri ly c on sti tut e an a

bu se of dis c re tio n" and

or de re d th e pa

rt ie s to fi le supplemental memora

nda re g ardingan appr opriate r emedy

. Schumac her , 665 F. Supp. at 46-47. B. Appli cable Law and Regulati on "I n order to qualify

for VAbenef

its, a cl ai m ant . . . or the pa rty upon whose ser

vice the cla im ant pred ica tes th e cl aim

. . . [ mu s t b e ] a 'vet eran .'" Cro pp e r v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 450, 452 (1 9 9 4 ) ( ci t i n g Aguilar v. Derwinski , 2 Ve t.A pp . 2 1 ( 19 91 )) ; see D'

Ami co v . W

est , 209 F.3d 1322,9

1327 (F ed. Cir. 2000) (r ejec ting this Court' s rea soning in Lar ua n v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 80, 86 (1998) (en ba nc), that "' Congr ess could n o t h av e i ntended that pe rsons without requisite veter an status would benefi t from the statutory presumptions and ena ctments rese rved f or vete rans' ", w hich

rea soning the Court ha d also employ ed to hold in Laruan that claimant must show "ve tera n" status b y p r e p o n d e r an c e o f

e v i d e n c e )

. A v e t e r an i s d e f i n e d a s " a p e r s o n w h o s e r

v e d i nt h e a c t i v e m i l i t a r

y,
n a v a l, o r a ir s e r

v ic e , an d w h o w a s d is c h ar g e d o r r e le a s e d th e r e f r o m u n d e r c o n d it io n s o th e r than dis ho no ra ble ." 38 U. S.C. § 1 01 (2 ); see 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(d) ( 2001 & 2003) . Serv i ce i n the ac tive milit ary , naval, or air ser

vice include s, inter alia, se rvice in the U.S. Armed F orce s. See 38 U. S.C. §§ 10 1( 10 ) ( in pe rt ine nt part de fi nin g " Ar me d Fo rc e s" a s " Un ite d St a te s A rmy , N a vy , M ari ne Cor ps , Ai r F or c e , a

nd Coa st Gu ard " ), 10 1( 21 )( A) (i n p e rt ine nt p art de fi nin g " a c tiv e du ty " a s " fu ll- tim e du ty in the Armed F orce s") , 101(24)( A) (in pe rtinent part defining "a ctive mi litary , naval, or air ser vice" as including "a ctive duty ")

. Merc hant Marines are not inc luded in the statutory definition of Arme d For ces. See 38 U.S.C. § 101(10). Thus, the appe llant is not eligible for veter ans bene fits unless he (1) ha d full-time duty

in the Coast Guard or

(2) is a me mber of a

g roup of the Merc hant Marine that ha s b e e n r e c og nize d in

a le g isl a tiv e or

re g ulator y pr ov isi on

a s b e inge lig ibl e fo r v e te ra ns be ne fi ts. Reg ardingwhether

the appe llant's se rvice with the Merc hant Marine has bee n rec og nized as constituting ac tive milit ary service , a full examination of the applica ble leg islative an d regulatory provisions is necessar

y . On No v em b er 2 3 , 1977, Public L aw 95- 202 was e nacte d, and in § 401 Con g re ss p ro vid e d th e Se c retary of De fe ns e wi th a

uth or ity , a ft e r c on sid e ratio n o f f a c tor s li ste d in t h e s t at u t e, t o d es i gn at e t h e s er v i ce o f ce rt ai ngro u p s , wh i ch ar e "s i m i l ar l y

s i tu at ed " t o t h e W o m en 's Air F o r c e s Se r

v ic e Pi lo ts g r o u

p an d w h ic h r e n d e r e d s e r v ic e to th e U

. S. A r

me d F o r c e s , as " active duty for the pur

poses of a ll laws administered by the Secr etar

y o f Ve t er an s Affa irs". Public L aw 95 -2 02 § 4 01 (a )( 1) (a s ame nd e d by Pub lic L aw 10 2- 83 , § 6( b) , 10 5 Stat. 4 07 (1 99 1) ); see Pache co
v . W est , 1 2 V e t.A

pp
. 36 , 37 (1 99 8) (d isc us sin g laws and re g ulatio ns re g ard ingre c og nit ion of c e rt a in lim ite d M e rc ha

nt M ari ne se rv ic e a s a c tiv e -d uty se rv ic e fo r p ur

po se of VAbe ne fi ts) . Purs ua

nt t o Pub lic L aw 9 5- 20 2 § 40 1, the Se c re tary of De fe ns e pr omu lg a te d re g ulatio ns e sta bli sh ing the c ri te ri a for de termining whether

a g roup mee ts t h e re q u irements for active- duty -ser

vice c onsideration, 3 2 C

. F. R

. § 4 7.2 et seq. ( 2 0 0 3 ) , an d d e l e g a t i n g t o t h e S e c r e t ar y o f t h e A i r F o r c e t h e a

u t h o r i t y to deter mine whether

cer tain g ro u p s s o q u a li f y , 32 C.F.R. § 47.5(b)( 8) (2003) . There afte r, the Sec reta ry of the Air Fo rc e m ad e a de termination on J anuar y 19, 1988, that "the service of the ' Americ an10

Merc hant Marine in Ocea ng oing Ser

vice dur ing the Period of Armed Conflict, D ece mber 7, 1941, to Aug ust 15, 1945,' sha ll be considere d ' active duty ' for the pur poses of a ll laws adm inistered by [VA ]." 5 3 F e d

. R e g
. 2 , 7 7 5 , 2 , 7 7 5 ( F e b

. 1 , 1 9 8 8 )

. T o b e e l i g i b l e f o r V A b e n e f

i t s u n de r t his deter mination, each c laimant is require d to de monstrate by the following elig ibilit y

criter ia that he or she: 1. Was employ ed by the War Shipping Administration or Of fice of Def ense T ra nsportation or their a g ents as a me rcha nt seaman documented by

th e U.S. C oast Guar d or De partment of Commerc e (M e rc ha nt M ari ne r' s D oc ume nt/ Ce rt if ic a te of Se rv ic e ), or as a

c ivi l serva nt employ ed by

the U.S. Army

Transpor t Service .

. . or the Nava l Transportation Service; and
2. Served satisfactorily as a crew m ember du ring t he period of ar med c onf lic t, D e c e mber

7, 19 41 , to Augu st 1 5, 19 45 , a bo ard (a) Merch ant vessels in oceangoing, i .e., fore ign, in tercoastal, or coastw i s e s er vice . . . and fur

ther to include " near

fore ign" voy ag es be tw e e n th e Un ite d St a te s and Canada, Me xico , o r We st I nd ie s v ia ocea n routes, or (b ) P ub lic ve sse ls i n o c e ang oin g se rv ic e or fo re ig n w a te rs
. 53 Fe d. Reg . at 2,775 (boldfa ce italics e mphasis added)

. Ba sed on the a

bove dete rmination, VA ame nded its regulation § 3

. 7 , b y adding par ag raph (x)(15), to include recog nition of veteran status for certa in members of the M erc hant M arine who qualified for

active- duty

service . 53 Fe d. Reg . 16,875, 16, 8 7 5 (M ay 1 2 , 1988) (stating that VA public notice and c o m m ent period for re g ulation was " impractica ble and unne cessa

ry " a nd explaining that " VA has no discr etion in this m atter" beca use dec ision of Secr etary of Air F orce
re g ard inge sta

bli sh me nt o f a c tiv e -d

uty se rv ic e wa s " bin din g on

. . . V A" ); see 38 U.S.C. § 501(a) (S e c re tary

ha s " a uth or ity to p re sc ri be a ll ru le s and re g ulatio ns wh ic h a re ne c e ssa

ry or a pp ro pr ia te to

car ry out the laws administere d by the Depa

rtment an d ar e consi stent with those laws" ). VA

re g ulatio n § 3. 7( x)( 15 ) p ro vid e d, and c ur re ntl y pr ov ide s, in p e rt ine nt p art : ( x ) Active military service certified as such unde r section 401 of Pub. L. 95-202. Such service if ce rtif i ed by the Secre tary of Def en se as active

m ilitar y serv ice and if a discharge under honor able condition s is issued by the Secretary [ of De fense]

. The eff ective dates for a

n awa rd base d upon such serv i ce s hall be as11 provided by

§ 3.400(z) and 38 U.S.C. [§ ] 5 1 1 0 , except that in no event s h a ll s u c h anaw ar d b e ma d e e f

f e c ti v e e ar li e r

than November

23, 1977. Service

in t h e followin g groups h as been certified as ac tive mi litary service

.

. . . . (15) Am erican Merchant Marin e i n Oce angoin g Service during the Pe rio d o

f A rmed Conf lic t, D e c e mber 7, 19 41 , to Augu st 15, 1945. 38 C.F.R. § 3.7(x)(15) (2001 & 2003) (boldface italics emphasis added). On S eptember 2, 1999, the Secre tary of the Air F orce made the f ollowing de termination: On Aug ust 11, 199 9 , the Secr etar y of the Air F orce , actingas Ex ecutive A g ent of the Sec reta ry of De fense , deter

mined that the service of the g roup known as "A merica n Merc hant Marine Ma

riners Who Were in

A c ti v e O c e an - G o in g Se r v ic e " d u r in g th e p e r io d

of Au g us t 15 , 1 94 5[,] t o D e c e mbe r 3 1, 19 46 , s ha ll not b e c o nsidered "a ctive duty " unde r the provisions of Pu b l i c L aw 95- 202 for the purposes of a ll laws administered by [VA]

. 64 Fe d. Reg . 48,146, 48,146 (Sept. 2, 1999) (e mphasis added)

. I n order for this Court to reve rse a BV A decision on a finding of fac t, we must find that the B VAde c isi on

wa s " c le arl y

e rr on e ou s" . 3 8 U.S. C. § 7261 (a )( 4)

. Un de r thi s d e fe re nti a l st and a rd , if there is a " ' plausible' basis" in the rec ord, " ' viewed in its entirety ' ", f or the fa ctual dete rminations of the B VA, t h e C o u rt cannot ove rturn them. Gilbert v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 49, 52- 53 (1990) (q u o t i n g An de rso n v . City of Be sse me r Ci ty , 4 70 U. S. 5 64 , 5 73 -7 4 ( 19 85 )) ; se e als o H ur d v . W est , 13 Ve t.A pp . 4 49 , 4 51 (2 00 0) ; Ha rd e r v . B ro wn , 5 Vet.App. 183, 189 ( 1993) (c itin g Karnas v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 308, 311 ( 1991), ov e rru le d in pa rt by Kuz ma v . P rin c ipi

, 341 F.3d 1327, 1 3 2 8

- 2 9 ( F e d

. C i r
. 2 0 0 3 ) ); Ba rn hi ll v . B ro wn , 5 Ve t.A pp . 7 5, 77 (1 99 3) ; cf. Mariano v. Principi , 17 Vet.App. 3 0 5 , 313 (2003) ( holding that, unde r sec tion 7261(a)( 4) and ( b)(1) , Court review s as fac tual deter

mination Secreta

ry ’s application of "e quipoise standard" under 38 U .S.C. § 5107(b)). Un de r 3 8 U .S. C. § 71 04 (a ) a nd (d )( 1) , th e B oa

rd is r e qu ir e d to c on sid e r a

nd disc us s in

its d ec i s ions all "potentially applicable " pr ovisions of law and re g ulation. Schafrath v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 589, 5 9 2 -9 3 (1991); see 38 U. S.C. § 7 10 4( a ), (d )( 1) ; W eave r v. Principi , 14 Vet.App. 30 1, 30 2 ( 20 01 ) ( pe r c ur iam or de r) ; Sanden v. D erwinski , 2 Vet.App. 97 , 1 0 0 (1992). The Boa rd12

i s al s o re qu i re d t o i n cl u d e i n i t s d ec i s i o n a wr i t t en s t at em en t o f t h e re as o n s o r b as es fo r i t s fi n d i n gs
and c on c lus ion s o n a ll m a te ri a l is su e s o f f a c t and law p re se nte d o n th e re c or d; t hat st a te me nt m

us t be a de qu a te to e na

ble an a pp e lla nt t o und e rs tand

the pr e c ise ba sis fo r t

he B oa rd ' s d e c isi on , a s w e ll as to fac ilitate informed re view in this Court. See 38 U. S .C . § 71 04 (d)( 1) ; Al lda yv . B ro wn , 7 Ve t.A pp . 5 17 , 5 27 (1 99 5) ; Gi lbe rt , 1 Vet.App. at 56-57. To comply with this requirement, the Boa rd must analy

ze the credibility

and probative value of

the evidenc e, ac count for the evidenc e that it finds pe rsuasive or unpersua sive, and provide the rea sons f or its re jection of any

materia l evidence fa v o rable to the claimant. Se e Cal uz a v . B ro wn , 7 Vet.App. 498, 506 ( 1995), a ff 'd p e r c u riam , 78 F .3 d 6 04 (F e d. Cir . 1 99 6) (ta ble ); Ga br ie lso n v . B ro wn , 7 Ve t.A pp . 3 6, 39 -4 0 ( 19 94 ); Gi lbe rt , su pra . C. V alidity of 38 C.F.R . § 3.7(x)( 15) Th e a pp e lla nt s e e ks rever sa l, a

rguin g that § 3 .7 (x) (1 5) is i nv a lid un de r t he a pp lic a ble statut or y sc he me . A t or a l argument , cou ns e l f or the a pp e lla nt c lari fi e d th a t th e a

pp e lla nt i s challeng ing only

§ 3.7(x)(15) and not any regulations promulgated by the Secr etar

y of the Air F orce
or the Secre tary of Def

ense. Henc e, on this que stion, we consider here only whether § 3 .7(x)(15) is " arb itr ary , c a

pr ic iou s, an abu se of

dis c re tio n, or

oth e rw ise no t in

a c c or da nc e wi th l aw" or

" in excess of statutory

jurisdiction, authority , or limitations, or i n v i olation of a statutory rig ht." 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(3) (A), ( C). The limited el igibility

period for

active- duty

service contained in § 3.7( x )(15) ref lects the l i m i t e d p e r i o d p r e v i o u s l y d e t e r

m i n e d b y t h e S e c r e t ar

y o f t h e A i r F o r c e , w h o h a s g e n e r a l a u t h o r i t y, as dele g ated by

the Secr etar

y of De fense , to desig nate g roups for pur poses of act i v e- d u t y

service under Public L aw 95- 202 § 401. See 64 Fe d. Reg . at 48,146; 53 Fe d. Reg . at 2,775. The Court holds that th e VA ' s p ro mul g a tio n o f § 3. 7( x)( 15 ), inc lud inge li gibi li ty date s o f D e c e mbe r 7 , 1 94 1, to Au g us t 15 , 1 94 5, wa s n ot " arbi tr ary , c a pr ic iou s, an a

bu se of dis c re tio n, or

oth e rw ise no t in

acc ordanc e with law" or " in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority , or limitations, or in vi olation of a statutory

rig ht." 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a) (3)( A), (C)

. I n p ro m u l g ating that regulation, VA was bo un d b y the e lig ibi lity

pe ri od re g ard inga c tiv e -d

uty status de te rm ine d by the Se c re tary of the Ai r For ce. See Pub. L . 95-202 § 401. More over, even if the Court w ere to inva lidate § 3.7(x)(15), such

a c tio n w ou ld n ot a ff

e c t th e c e rt if

ic a tio n o f t

he g ro up c ov e re d b y

that r e g ulatio n und e r § 40 1 b e c a us e the VA has no authority

to rejec t or alter D oD' s cer tification under that statute. See 53 Fe d. Reg . at13

16,875 (desc ribing regulations reg arding active- duty status issued by Secre tary of Air F orce as being

" bin din g on

. . . V A" ); se e als o So ria v . B ro wn , 118 F.3d 747, 749 (F ed. Cir. 1997) (conc luding that i nm at t er s re qu i ri n g s er v i ce d ep ar t m en tce rt i fi ca t i o n"V A h as l o n g t re at edt h e s er v i ce d ep ar t m en t 's decis io n on su c h ma

tte rs a s c on c lus ive and

bin din g on

. . . V A" ); Duro v. De rwinski , 2 Vet. App. 530, 532 (1992) ( holding that " service depar tment findings a

re binding o n VA fo r purpose s of establishing se rvice in the U.S. Armed F orce s")

. As to the rele vance of the de finition of WW I I in 38 U.S.C. § 101(8), the appe llant's c ounsel at ora l argument asser

ted t hat t he par enthetica l in Publ ic L aw, § 401( a)( 1), which r efe rs to "a g roup of Fe dera l c ivilian e mploy ees attache d to the United States Army Air F orce durin g [ WW I I ]" and follows the phra se " a member of the Women' s Air For ces Ser vice Pilo t s ", impli cate s the term

" [WW I I ]" a s def

ine d by Con g re ss in se c tio n 101 (8 ), wh e n d e te rm ini ngan a wa rd of a VAbe ne fi t,

e ve n if § 40 1 do e s no t a

pp ly un til a ft e r a

c la ima nt i s g ra nte d v e te ra

n s ta tus thr ou g h th e VAc la ims proce ss. Publi c L aw 95-202 § 401(a) (1) (emphasis added)

. Howeve r, § 401, unlike section 101(8) , is not a part of title 38 of the U .S. Code. There fore , any analy sis under se ction 101(8) c an take place

o n l y after it has been de termined that a claimant has me t the criter ia under § 401 of beinga member of a c ertified c lass who has be en is sued a DoD dis char g e reflec ting service dates assoc iated with that

c e rt if ie d c la ss a

nd VAis the n a

pp lyingtit le 38 pr ov isi on s to de te rm ine e lig ibi lity fo r V A b e ne fi ts

u n d e r t h a tt i t l e
. T h a ti s , t h e g e n e r a l d e f i n i t i o nc o n t a i n e d

i ns e c t i o n1 0 1 ( 8 ) f

o r t h e r e c o g n i z e d

W W II pe ri od of De c e mbe r 7 , 1 94 1, to D e c e mbe r 3 1, 19 46 , doe s not d e fi ne e lig ibi lity date s f or a c tiv e -d uty service in acc ordanc e with § 401, but instead defines the t erm W W I I for pur poses of VAlaws and regulations, and has no oper ative ef fec t here

. Cf. Ha mi lto n (

Sta nle y ) v . B ro wn , 4 Vet.App. 528, 536 (1993) ( en banc ) (noting that "[d]efinitions, whether statutory o r regulatory , are not themselves

o p er at i v e p ro v i s i o n s o f l aw ") (c i t i n g N OR MAN J. S I NGER , S UTHE R L AND O N S T A T U T O RY C ONS TR UC TI ON § 27.02, at 459 (4th ed. 1985) ). Re g ard le ss whe the r § 3.7( x)( 15 ) is va lid , the a pp e lla nt mus t mee t DoD ' s c e rt if

ic a tio n c ri te ri a
un de r P ub lic L aw 9 5- 20 2 § 40 1. Se c tio n 4 01 pr ov ide s in pe rt ine nt p art : (a) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the service of any person a s a member of the Women's Air F orce s Service Pilots (a g roup of F eder al civilian employ ees at t ac h ed to the United States Ar my Ai r F or c e duri ngWor ld Wa r I I ), or the se rv ic e of

any pe rs on

in an y o th e r s im il ar ly s it u a te d g r o u p th e me mb e r s o f

w h ic h rende red14 se rv ic e to t

he Ar me d F or c e s o f t

he United

State s in

a c a pa c ity c o n s i d e r e d

c i v i l i ane mp l o y

m e n to r c o n t r a c tu a l s e r

v i c e a tt h e t ime such ser vice wa s ren d ered, sha ll b ec ons ide re d a c tiv edut y for the purposes of a ll laws administered by the S ecr etar

y of Ve tera

ns Affa irs if the Se c retary

of De fe nse , pursuant to re g ulations which the Secre tary shall presc ribe – (A) a f

te r a f u ll r e v ie w o f th e h is to r ic a l r e c o r d s a n d all other avail ab le evidenc e per

taining to the se rvice of any such g roup, de t e r mi n es , o n t h eb a s i s o f j u d i c ia l a n d o t h e r a p p r o p r ia te pr e c e de nt, tha t the

se rv ic e of

suc h gr oup c ons tit

ute d a c tiv emilita ry service , and ( B ) in th e c a s e o f an y s u c h g r o u p w it h r e s p e c t to whic h such Secre tary has made an af

firmative de termination that the ser v i ce of such g roup constituted ac tive milit ary service , issues to each m ember of su ch group a dischar ge fr om s uc h s e rv ic e un de r h on or a ble c o n d it io n s w h e r e th e n a tu r e an d d u r a ti o n o f th e s e r

v ic e of suc h me mbe r s o w arr ants

. Dischar g es i ssued pursuant to the provisi ons of the first sente nce of this parag raph sha ll d es i g nate a s the date of discharg e that date , as deter mined by the Secr etar

y of De fense , on which such se rvice by the person c oncer

ned wa s terminated.
Pub lic L aw 95 -202 § 4 01 (a )( 1) (A ), (B ) ( e mph a sis a dd e d) . A c c or din g ly , § 40 1 p ro vid e s th a t,

no t withstanding a

ny other provision of law , the servic e of a member of

a g roup desig nated by

the Secre tary of De fense "sha ll be considere d active duty for the pur

poses of a ll laws administered by the S ecr etar

y of Ve tera

ns Affa irs if

the Secr etar

y of De fense . . . shall presc ribe" (1) that the se rvice

o f s u ch gro u

p co n s t i tu t es ac t i v e du t y

an d (2 ) t h at m em b er s o f t h at gro u p ar e t o b e i s s u eda d i s ch ar ge from "such ser

vice unde r honora

ble conditions" that shows the date of discharg e as de termined by the Do D. Pub lic L aw 9 5-2 02 § 40 1( a )( 1) (A ), (B ) ( e mph a sis a dd e d) . Se c tio n 4 01 e xpre ssl y conditions effe ctive ac tive-duty status for the pur

p o s e o f VA-administered law s on those two require ments – that the DoD c ertify a g roup and i s s u e a d i schar g e. Public L aw 95- 202 § 401(a) (1)( A), (B ); see Chev ron and Lee , both su pra . Her e, althoug h the Secr etar y of the Air F orce , pursuant to aut h o ri t y d eleg ated by the Se c re tary of De fe ns e , c e rt if

ie d a g ro up of me mbers of the Me rc ha nt M ari ne wh o d e mon str a te

ac t i v e- d u t y s er v i ce b et we en De ce mb er 7 , 1 9 4 1 , an d

Au gu s t1 5 , 1 9 4 5 , t h e ap p el l an th as n o ts u b mitted15

the re quired DoD discharg e. His DD F orm 214 (R. at 9) does not ref lect dates associate d with the

cer tified g roup, see 53 Fe d. Reg . at 2,775, that is, dates that fa ll within the § 401 elig ibilit y period of De c e mbe r 7 , 1 94 1, to Augus t 15 , 1 94 5. Al tho ug h the RO A d oe s n ot c on ta in a Do D d isc ha

rg e to the appe llant as a membe r of a g roup cer tified to ha

ve perf ormed active duty

with the U.S. Armed For ces pur suant to Public L aw 95-202 § 401, based on other evidenc e in the ROA and de ficienc ies in t he B oa rd de c isi on on re vie w, a s d isc us se d in pa rt I I I .E .2 , b e low , it

is p re ma tur e fo r t

he Court to de te rm ine wh e the r t

he B oa rd ' s den ial of the a

pp e lla nt' s c la im f

or qu a lif y ingse rv ic e ba se d o n h is service in the Merc hant Marine was " clea rly err oneous" under 38 U .S.C. § 7261(a)(4)

. D. Board's Con cession of Active- Duty Service The a ppellant next arg ues for

rev ersal on the g round that the B oard c oncede d that he pa rt ic ipate d in

a c tiv e -d uty se rv ic e in t

he Me rc ha

nt M ari ne befor e De c e mbe r 3 1, 19 46 , a nd that, there fore , by

virtue of the se ction 101(8) de finition of W W I Ihe should be g rante d "ve tera n" status and his claim fo r a hear ing- loss disabili ty should be rema

nded to the RO for

development a

nd

a dju dic a tio n in the fi rs t insta nc e . B r. a t 18 ; see Br

. at 15-16 (citing R. at 5). The Court re jects the appellant' s argument about th e signific ance of the Sec reta ry ' s conce ssion that the appellant had

a c tiv e -d uty se rv ic e be fo re De c e mbe r 31 , 19 46 , ba se d on his DD F or m 21 4' s h a vin g lis te d a c tiv e -d uty service dates of Aug ust 28, 1945, to Dec ember 31, 1946, beca use t he is sue on appe al as to Mer chant Marine se rvice is whether t h e appe llant had ac tive-duty service in the Merc hant Marine befor e Aug ust 15, 1945; neither the B oard nor the Secr etar

y conce de that matter . Thus, the B oard' s decision

wa s n ot " c le arl y e rr on e ou s" in lig ht of the Se c re tary ' s c on c e ssi on . 3 8 U .S. C. § 72 61 (a )( 4) ; see Hu rd , Harder , Ba rn hil l , and Gi lbe rt , a ll su pra ; cf. Mariano , su

pra . E. Determi nation of Eligibil ity Dates for Active

-Duty Service Finally , the appe llant argues that the Boa rd decision should be re verse d on the g round that the B oard f

ailed to consider

all documents in the ROA whe n it determined that he di d n o t qualify for a ctive-duty

service . As noted above , the appe llant may be elig ible for ve tera

ns benef its i f he (1) ha d full-time duty

in the Coast Guard or

(2) is a member of a g roup of Mercha nt Marines that ha s be e n r e c og nize d in

a le g isl a tiv e or

re g ulator y pr ov isi on

a s b e inge lig ibl e fo r v e te ra ns be ne fi ts. 1. Elig ibi lit y fo r V e te ra ns Be ne

fi ts B as e d on Full

-t ime Dut y in the U. S. Coa st Guard : In deter mining whe ther the a

ppellant had full-time duty in the Coast Guard, V A re g ulation § 3.203(a) pr ov ide d, int e r a lia , at th e tim e of the Marc h 2 00 2 B oa

rd de c isi on , a

nd c ur re ntl y pr ov ide s, tha

t in16

order to establish such full-time duty , [ VA ] may

acc ept evidenc e of se rvice . . . such as a DD F orm 214, Certificate of Relea se or Disc harg e fr om Acti ve Duty , or orig inal Ce rt if ic a te of Di sc ha rg e , w ithou t ve ri fi c a tio n f ro m th e a pp ro pr ia te se rv ic e de pa

rtme nt i f t

he e vid e nc e me e ts the fo llo wi ngc on dit ion s: (1) The evidenc e is a doc ument iss u ed b y the servic e depar tment. A copy of an orig inal document is ac cepta ble if the c opy w a s i s s u e d

b y t h e s e r

v i c e d e p art m e n to r

i f t h e c o p y w a s i s s u e d

b y a public custodian of r ecor ds who ce rtifies that it i s a t ru e and exact copy of the doc ument in the custodian' s custody or, i f the c opy

was submitt ed by

an accr ed ited ag ent, attorne y or ser vice or g anization repr esen t ative who ha s succe ssfully completed VA -pre scribed training on milit ary

rec ords, and who ce rt i fi es t hat it is a true and exact copy

of either an orig inal document or of a copy issued by the service depar

tment or a public c ustodian of re cords; and (2) [t] he docume nt contains nee ded information as t o leng th, time[ ,] and chara cter

of ser vice; and (3) [i] n the opinion of [VA] the document is ge nuine and the information containe d in it is acc urate

. 38 C.F.R. § 3.203(a) (1), ( 2), (3) (2001 & 2003). Absent the submission of evidenc e that mee ts the require ments of § 3.203(a ), VA "shall request ver ification of se rvice from the se rvice depar tment." 38 C.F.R. § 3.203(c) . Moreove r, finding s by the service depar tment as to full-time duty service for veter ans bene fits "a

re binding on VA for purposes of establishing se rvice in the U.S. Armed F orce s." Du ro , s up ra . Th e B oa rd ' s st ate me nt of re a so ns or ba se s in the ins tant c a se is d e fi c ie nt i n s e ve ra l r e sp e c ts. Th e B oa rd fa ile d to add

re ss ce rt a in ev ide nc e that the a pp e lla nt sub mit te d pe rt a ini ng to his po ssi ble

s er v i c e i nt h e U

. S

. C o as tGu ar d

. S p ec i fi ca l l y , al t h o u gh t h e B o ar d co n s i d er edt h e ap p el l an t 's Certificate of Gr aduation fr o m the U.S. Maritime Service TrainingStation, U.S. C oast Guar d Merc hant Seaman' s Cert ificate of I dentification, and Record of Service , the pre ss relea se fr om S enat or L ot t's offi ce, and "docu men ts fro m t he M erch ant Mar in e", it explained only why it rejec ted the U.S. Coast Guard Me rcha nt Seaman' s Certificate of I dentification and the appe llant's c laim of three wee ks of oce ang oing se rvice in J uly 1945 without discussing the other documents in the re cord. R. at 4- 5. Th e B oa

rd fa ile d to ex pl ain the re a so ns fo r a pp are ntl y re je c tin g the oth e r d oc ume nts17

descr ibed above, which include the U.S. Coast Guard Cer tificate of Service (R. at 72). More over, the B oa rd fa ile d to a dd

re ss § 3. 20 3 a

nd the a pp e lla nt' s opti on to sub mit c op ie s of or ig ina l do c ume nts iss ue d b y a se rv ic e de pa

rtme nt i n li e u o f o r in ad dit ion to a DD F or m 214. F ur

the r, the B oa

rd did not deter mine whether , pursuant to § 3.203(a) (1), doc uments other than the a ppellant' s DD F orm 214 – the documents identified a b o v e, including the appe llant's U .S. Maritime Service Rele ase f rom Active Duty

(R. at 74) or his Certificate of Substantially Continuous S ervic e (R. at 75) – constituted "e vid ence of ser

vice" that was " issued by the servic e depa

rtment" (that is, the U.S. Coast Guard)

. 38 C.F .R. § 3 .2 03 (a )( 1) ; se e So ria and Du ro , both su pra . I n a dd iti on , th e B oa

rd ' s st a te me nt t

hat " the larg e st ob sta c le c on fr on tin g the a pp e lla nt i n th is

case is the fac t that his DD [Form] 214 reflects ser vice f rom Aug ust 28, 1945[ ,] t o Dec ember 31, 1946" ( R. at 5), see ms to sugg est, as the Sec reta ry argues in his brief, that a

claimant' s DD F orm 214 "is a nd sh o u l d b e d i s p o s i t ive as to [the a]ppellant's dates of ser vice." Br . at 8. This conclusion, howeve r, contra dicts the plain meaning of § 3.203(a ) that evide nce of service may

be demonstrated by do c ume nts " such as a DD F or m 214" (3 8 C.F .R. § 3.2 03 (a ) ( e mph a sis a dd e d) ); the re g ulatio n in

n o w ay l i m i t s s u c h e v i d e n c e t o t h e D D F o r m 2 1 4 o r c h ar a c t e r i z e s i ta s " d i s p o s i t i v e "

. A c c o r d i n g l y, the Court conclude s that the Boa rd failed to c onsider adequately "a ll .

. . applicable provisions of law and re g ulation" a

nd to provide an a dequate statement of r easons or bases for its decision. 38 U.S.C § 7 10 4( a ), (d )( 1) ; see Allday and Gilbert, both su pra . Her e, VA e rre d in not making a n additional reque st se eking verific ation of service following the s u b m i s s i on by

the appe llant of additional documents to the RO at the Ma y 2001 hear ing. See 38 U. S.C. § 5 10 3A (a )( 1) (p ro vid ingthat " [t]he Se c re tary sh a ll m a ke re a so na

ble e ff or ts t o a ssi st a claimant in obtaining evidenc e nec essar y to substantiate the claimant' s claim for a benef it unde r a law administere d by

the Secr etar

y ") , (b ) ( 3 ) ( Secre tary

must continue eff

orts to obtain rec ords of other fe de ra l a g e nc ie s " un le ss i t is re a so na bly c e rt a in that su c h re c or ds do no t e xist o r t hat f ur the r e ff or ts to obta in those rec ords would be futile" ), (c) (1) (providing that Secre tary shall obtain, i n t er ali a, "r eleva n t re co rds pertaining to the c laimant' s active military , naval, or air ser vice that a

re he ld or

ma int a ine d b y

a g ov e rnmen tal entity " if su c h r e c or ds are re le va nt t o c la im f

or dis a bil ity compensation), (g ) (not pre cluding Se c r e ta r y f r om "pr oviding suc h other a ssistance unde r subsec tion (a ) t o a c la ima nt i n s ub sta

nti a tin g a c la im a s th e Se c re tary

c on sid e rs a

pp ropri ate " ); 38 C.F .R. § 3.159(c) (1) ( 2002) (r equiring VA to make " at least one follow-up reque st" for rele vant rec ords not18

in custody

of F eder al depa

rtment or ag ency

unless "a response to the initial re quest indicates that the re c or ds so ug ht d o n ot e xist o r t hat a fo llo w- up re qu e st fo r t

he re c or ds wo uld

be futil e " ); Charles v. Principi , 1 6 V e t.A

pp . 370 , 374 -7 5 (20 02 ). On re mand , in the e ve nt that the B oa rd re je c ts the se documents on the ba si s t h at t h ey d o not satisfy the re quirements of 38 C.F .R. § 3.203(a), the n, pursuant to 38 C .F.R. § 3.203(c) , VA is requir ed to re quest or obtain ver ification fr om the service depar tment as to whether

the appe llant had full -time servic e in the U.S. Coast Guar d at any time. See 38 C.F .R. § 3 .2 03 (c ); see als o 38 U. S.C. § 5 10 3A (a )( 1) , ( b) (3 ), (c )( 1) , ( g ); Sa rm ie nto v . B ro wn , 7 Vet.App. 80, 85 ( 1994) (holding that, under 38 C.F.R. § 3.203(c) , when a claimant supplies new identifying inf

ormation (e.g ., differ ent spelling of name ), VA must submit additional request for verific ation of ser

vice) , overruled on othe r grounds by D'Amico , su pra . Fur thermore , the Board did not addre ss whether the appe llant's tra ining a

board the Americ an Navig ator before Aug ust 15, 1945, qualified as active service with the U.S . Coast Guard. See R. at 1-6. The a

ppellant ar g ues that his J uly 1945 assig nment abo ar d t h at s h ip should be construed a s active duty . Br . at 17. The Sec reta ry contends that the appellant' s training with the Maritime Service TrainingOrg anization during that time does not c onstitut e active milit ary service and that the DoD previously deter

mined that the activities of this Mar itime Ser vice school did not constit u t e active milit ary service under Public L aw 95- 202 § 401. Br

. at 9, 14 (citing 47 Fe d. Reg . 6916 (F eb. 17, 1982)). T h e a

p p e ll an t r e s p o n d s th a t h e is n o t a me mb e r o f th e M ar it im e Se r v ic e Training Org anization, which is a subg roup of the Me rcha nt Marine r esponsible for ope rating the var ious Me rc ha nt M ari ne tr a ini ng sc ho ols

. Re ply B r. a t 13 . T he Court no te s th a t th e a

pp e lla nt' s Ce rt if ic a te of Gra duation (R. at 73) appea rs to ha ve been issued by a U.S. Ma ritime Service TrainingStation, but there a

ppear s to be no evidenc e in the ROA sug g esting that he is a member of the g roup known as t he Maritime Service TrainingOrg anization. See R. at 1- 93. The B oard must addr ess this matter

on rema nd. 2
. E l i gi b i l it y f o r V e t e r a n s B e n e

f it s B a s e d o n S

e r v i c e i n t h e M e rc hant Ma rine : The appellant' s DD For

m 214 ref lects dates of service in the Merc hant Marine from Augu s t 2 8 , 1 9 4 5, throug h Dec ember

31, 1946 (R. at 9), a

nd the B oard c oncluded that, be cause this DD For m 214 doe s not refle ct dates of

service in the Merc hant Marine that the Secre tary of Def ense has ce rtified (i.e ., betwee n Dec ember

7, 1941, and Aug ust 15, 1945) the appe llant's se rvice did not constitut e ac tive milit ary service for pur

poses of VA benef

its. R. at 5. The Court concludes that the Boa rd did not19

addre ss adequately

whether , in light of the documents submitt ed by the appe llant possibly

ref lecting dates of Merc hant Marine service prior to Aug ust 16, 1945 ( see e.g. , R. a t 70 , 7 2, 75 ; se e als o R. at 71 (Recor d of Service noting a ppellant' s transfe r t o Am eric an Navigator in J uly 1945)), VAhad

re c on c ile d th os e do c ume nts wi th the DD F or m 21 4 is su e d b y

the Se c re tary

of De fe ns e ; no r d oe s it appea r that VA r equeste d that the Secr etar y of Def ense rec oncile those documents with the DD F orm 214. See 38 U.S.C. § 51 0 3 A( a) (1 ), (b), ( g ); 53 Fe d. Reg . at 2,775 (providingthat for pur poses of elig ibilit y for ve tera

ns benef i t s , Merc hant Marine service require s, inter alia, having " [s] erve d satisfac torily

as a c rewmember dur ing the period [from] Dec ember 7, 1941, [t hroug h] Aug ust 15, 1945, aboar d . .

. [m ]erchant vessels in ocea ng oing . . . service ") . The Court notes that to the extent that the appe llant is arg uing that he h ad "oc eang oing se rvice " dur ing the elig ibilit y period of § 3.7(x)(15) base d on his tra ining aboar d the Americ an Navig ator in July 1945 and is thus a me mber of the g roup of Me rcha

nt Marines that ha s been considere d as havingactive duty and re cog nized as be inge lig ibl e fo r v e te ra

ns be ne fi ts, the a

pp e lla nt m us t sh ow that the Do D i ssu e d a dis c ha rg e to h im

a s a me mb er o f s uc h g ro up of Me rc ha nt M ari ne . 3 8 C. F .R. § 3 .7 (x) (1 5) ; see Public L aw 95- 202 § 401. Fur ther, with respe ct t o the Board' s relianc e on the appellant's DD For m 214, the Court notes that it is unclear whe ther that for m was i s sued solely

for the pur

pose of e stablishing date s of active- duty

service for e ligib i l ity

for c emeter

y and buria l benef

its pursuant to VPEA § 402, or wh et h er i twa s i s s u edaf

t er t ak i n g i n t o c o n s i d er at i o n al l s er v i ce d at es an d

ce rt i fi edt h e ap p el l an t 's service as qualify

ing f or onl y these limited benef

its. See VPEA § 402; 46 U.S.C. §§ 11201, 11202 (p ro vid inge lig ibi lity

fo r c e me te ry and buri a l be ne fi ts und e r t itl e 38 of U. S. Co de to m e mbe r o f U .S. Merc hant Marine if member e ng ag ed in qualified se rvice during p er i o d from August 16, 1945, throug h Dec ember

31, 1946); 38 U.S.C. § § 2 3 0 1-2308 (bur ial benef its); 38 U.S.C . §§ 2400-2411 (national c emeter ies and memorials); R. at 9 (DD F orm 214). The Court notes that if the DD F orm 214 was issued for

the limited purpose of establishing elig ibilit y for bur ial and ce metery

benef its the form appa

rently would have doc umented only service on or af

ter August 16, 1945. Thus, in li g ht of that possible limit ed purpose of the DD For m 214, the Court concludes that the Boa rd should not have r e li e d o n it ( o r th e a b s e n c e in th e r e c o r d o f an y o th e r D D F o r m 2 1 4 s ) to c o n c lu d e tha t the appellant' s service in the Merc hant Marine did not constitute "a ctive duty ," 53 F ed. Reg . at 2,775, fo r p ur po ses of vet eran s b e ne fi ts. Ac c or din g ly , th e B oa rd ' s st a te me nt o f r e a so ns or ba se s is20

inadequate in this respect a s well. See 38 U. S.C. § 7 10 4( d) (1 ); Alldayand Gi lbe rt , both supra. On

rema nd, the B oard must addr ess and r esolve this question to the best of its ability

. 3. Eligibility for V

eterans Benefits Determin ation : I n light of the above a naly sis reg arding elig ibilit y for veter ans benef

its ba sed both on full-time duty in the U.S. Coa st G uard and on ser vice in t he U. S. M e rc ha

nt M ari ne , i t is unc le ar w he the r t he B oa rd pr op e rl y c on sid e re d a ll d oc ume nts befor e it, and it would thus be premature for the Court to deter mine whether the Board' s denial of the claim for

qualifying se rvice was " clea rly err oneou s " u n d er 3 8 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(4) ; it is the B o ar d ' s r e s p o n s ib il it

y to w e ig h th e e v id e n c e in th e f ir s t in s ta nce. S ee Ca ldwell v. Derwinski , 1 V e t.A pp . 4 66, 46 9- 70 (1 99 1) ; cf. Mariano , su pra . Acc ording ly , the Court will vacate the B VA de c isi on and re mand the ma tte r f

or fu rt he r d e ve lop me nt a

nd re a dju dicatio n con sis te nt w iththi s op ini on in o rd e r f

or the B oa rd to d ir e c t th e RO to d e te rm in e th e a pp e lla nt' s d a te s o f a c tiv e -d

uty service , including deter

minations re g arding whether the appellant' s participatio n i n t raining constituted active- duty

service in the U.S. Coast Guard, whe ther the additional documents submitted by him a t th e May

20 01 RO he ari ngc on fo rm to t he re qu ir e me nts of

§ 3 .2 03 (a ) a

nd c on sti tut e "e vidence of ser

vice" in the U.S. Coast Guard. See 38 U. S.C. §§ 51 03 A, 71 04 (a ), (d )( 1) ; 38 C.F .R. §§ 3. 15 9( b) , ( c ), 3. 20 3; So ria , W eave r , Sa rm ie nto , Du ro , Sanden , and Sc ha fra th , a ll su

pra . I n the event that the Boa

rd rejects t he documents on the basis that they do not satisfy the re quirements of 38 C.F .R. § 3 .2 03 (a ), the Se c re tary mus t c omp ly

wi th 3 8 C. F .R. § 3 .2 03 (c ), wh ic h r e qu ir e s V A t o
re qu e st ve ri fi c a tio n fr om the se rv ic e de pa rtme nt a s to wh e the r the a pp e lla nt ha d fu ll- tim e se rv ic e in the U.S. Coast Guard at any time. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.203(c) ; 38 U .S.C. § 5103A(a)(1) , (b)( 3), (c )(1) , (g ). Fur

thermore , on rema

nd the Board must ensure compliance with the amendments made by the Vete rans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, Pub. L . No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096. See 38 U. S.C. § § 5 1 0 0 -5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107; Fortuck v . Principi , 1 7 V e t.A pp . 1 73 , 1 81 (2 00 3) ; Ch a r les , 16 Ve t.A pp . at 37 4; Quartuccio v . Principi , 16 Ve t.A pp
. 18 3, 18 7 ( 20 02 ). I n th is r e g ard , V A mus t help the appe llant obtain leg ible copies of his U.S. C oast Guar d Merc hant Seaman' s Certificate of I de nti fi cat ion

(R . at 70 ) a

nd U. S. Co a st G ua

rd Ce rt if ic a te of Se rv ic e (R . at 72 ). 38 U. S.C. § 5103A(b); 38 C.F .R. § 3.159(c) (2). The Court notes that, if the appe llant is diss atisfied with the contents of a

documen t issued by

the appr opriate se rvice depar tment, whether

a DD F orm 214 or other doc ument, his recour se lies wit h the board for c orre ction of ser vice r ecor ds within the service21

depar tment in question. Se e So ria , su pra (noting that "if

t h e Un i t ed States ser

vice de partment ref uses to verify the applicant' s claimed service , the applicant' s only rec ourse lies within the re levant

se rv ic e de pa

rtme nt, no t . . . V A" ); Du ro , su pra . VA mus t also assist the appellant by deter mining wh e the r h is D D F or

m 21 4 c le arl y

de sc ri be d the natur e of his se rv ic e or wh e the r it wa s is su e d s ole ly to establish active- dut y s er vice f or the purpose of burial a nd interment bene fits. VA must further reque st that the Secre tary of De fense reco n ci l e t he appe llant's D D For m 214 with the evidence

r e f le c ti n g h is p o s s ib le s e r

v ic e in th e M e r c h an t M ar in e p r io r to A u g u s t 1 6 , 1 945. S ee 38 U. S.C. § 5103A(a )(1) , (b), ( c)( 1), (g ).

IV. Conclusion Upon consider ation of t he R OA, the parties' pleading s, and the foreg oing a naly sis, the Court

vacates the M arc h 2002 Boa rd dec ision and remands the matter for expeditious further

development

and iss ua nc e of a re a dju dic a te d d e c isi on

su pp or te d b y a state me nt o f re a so ns or ba se s that is a de qu a te to the deter

mination of the appe llant's status, see 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5100-5103, 5103A, 7104(a ), (d)( 1); Public L aw 95- 202 §401; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.7(x )(15) , 3.159(b), (c), 3.203; Fortuck, W eave r , Sanden , and Sc ha

fra th , a ll su

pra ; Fletche r v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 394, 397 ( 1991), all consistent with this opi nion, and in acc ordance wi t h 3 8 U. S.C. § 7112 (as added by section 707(b) of the Veter ans B enef

its Act of 2003, Pub. L . No. 108-183, § 707(b) , 117 Stat. 2651, 2673 (Dec . 16, 2003) (re quiring Secret ar y

to provide for

"e x peditious treatment by the B oard" for c laims remande d by Court )) ; see Vargas-Gonzalez v. Principi , 15 Vet.App. 222, 225- 30 (2001) ( holding that se ction 302 of Ve tera ns' Be nefits I mprovements Act of 1994, Pub. L

. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658, appl ie s to a ll e le me n ts o f c la im r e ma n d e d b y Co u rt o r B o ar d ) , an d w it h a ll a p p li c a ble law a nd regulation. See A llday , 7 Ve t.A pp . at 53 3- 34 . O n r e mand , the a pp e lla nt w ill be fr e e to s ub mit additional evidenc e and a

rg ument on the re manded c laim, and the B oard is require d to consider a ny such evide nce a

nd argument. See Kay

v. Principi , 1 6 V e t.A

pp . 529 , 534 (2 00 2)

. A re mand by thi s Court o r b y th e B o ar d c o n f e r s o n an a

p p e ll an t th e r ig h t to V A c o mp li an c e w it h the terms of the

re mand order an d im

po se s o n th e Se c re tary

a c on c omi tant d

uty to e ns ur e c omp lia

nc e wi th t

ho se terms. Se e Ste

ga ll v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 268, 271 (1998). A f inal decision by

the B oard f

ollowing the re mand

he re in o rd e re d w ill c on sti tut e a ne w d e c isi on

that, i f a dv e rs e , may

be a pp e a le d to thi s Court only

upon the filing of a ne w Notice of Appea l w ith the Court not later than 120 day s after the22

date on which notice of

the B oard' s new fina l decision is mailed to the appellant. Se e Ma rsh v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 468, 472 ( 1998). VACATED A

ND REMANDED

.